EDITORIAL: What others are saying

Legislative leaders appoint select committees to give senators the opportunity to explore an issue in which they have a keen interest. They can do this in the select-committee environment without having the deadline pressure of an actual, pending piece of legislation, which often doesn't get proper scrutiny before the deadline arrives to vote on the bill.

In a normal two-year session, such committees can explore all manner of issues. Some will tackle thorny public-health matters. Another committee might take a stab at demystifying renewable energy. You get the idea.

But, as with most things involving the California Legislature, the process is less than perfect. In fact, The Sacramento Bee reported last weekend that it can be downright wasteful.

The Senate has formed 27 select committees that have been assigned at least one paid employee. The current two-year session ends in December, and 14 of those committees have yet to hold a single meeting ---- yet the staffer assigned to each committee has been receiving regular paychecks.

The Bee's report says it best: "... the work products of these select committees are sparse at best, and in most cases nonexistent."

And because media snoops have been focusing attention on the inactivities of such committees in recent years, lawmakers have taken steps to cover their tracks.

All Senate staff rosters provided a detailed breakdown of select committee staffing, explaining how the staff money was spent ---- until last year, when Senate leaders decided to group all aide positions under something called "general research committee." ...

As usual, what lawmakers tell the public about the inner workings of the Legislature is less than accurate. Now the Senate designates $5 million of its staffer costs as "general research," which allows the Senate to skirt the rules about reporting on the specific expenses of each select committee. ...

There is something seriously wrong with a system that gathers elected officials in a place where they can, for all intents and purposes, ignore the general public. They spend our tax dollars with impunity, then thumb their noses at those who pay their salaries and help fund their pet projects. ...

-- Santa Maria Times (Aug. 16)

Lawmakers don't trust state voters?

Apparently California's Democratic legislators don't trust voters to do what they want them to do when it comes to Proposition 39. That's the measure on the November ballot that "closes a loophole" that gives multistate businesses operating in California a cheaper option for paying state taxes.

Instead of waiting to see whether voters will understand the off-puttingly titled "Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding" measure, Assembly Speaker John Perez crafted a bill ---- AB 1500 ---- that renders the measure moot if it passes. That may happen. The Assembly passed it Monday, and it now heads to the Senate.

If AB 1500 becomes law, supporters of the ballot measure say they will stop campaigning for it ---- making it the second November ballot measure abandoned by its creators. (The first was Proposition 40, which would dump the state Senate districts drawn last year by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.)

Why don't legislators trust unpredictable voters with Prop. 39?

The state has $1 billion a year on the line, that's why.

Both the bill and Prop. 39 would require every company to use the "single-sales factor" method to calculate their taxes, based on their sales within California. Companies could no longer choose the "triple factor" method, in which firms headquartered elsewhere can pay less. The tax option benefits big companies that have sales but not much of a physical presence in California. ...

Despite the rhetoric, this is no loophole. That term connotes an unintended consequence of another action. The taxing options were part of a deal that California Democratic legislators knowingly agreed to in 2009 in order to get their Republican counterparts to buy into a proposed budget deal. They have regretted it ever since, and already tried to get voters to undo it in an unsuccessful 2010 measure ending three corporate tax breaks. ...

Even if the bill passes the Senate, voters could still pass Prop. 39, setting up a legal fight. That's ridiculous.

The measure will go before voters, no matter what the Legislature does. If senators value the sanctity of the public's right to vote on ballot measures, they will ignore Perez's bill ---- even if they agree with it.